Quantum theory works but is it good science? After all, quantum waves aren’t observable:
“The full quantum wave function of an electron itself is not directly observable…” (Lederman & Hill, 2004), p240.
Nature’s firewall seems to separate us from quantum waves, because any attempt to observe them just gives a physical event, but is a theory about what can’t be seen scientific? The doctrine that only “…what impinges on us directly is real” (Mermin, 2009), p9, suggests that it isn’t, because:
1. Science is about reality, not imaginary things like fairies.
2. Our reality is only what we can physically observe.
3. Thus, a theory about what can’t be observed is imaginary, and so it isn’t scientific.
By this logic, quantum theory isn’t scientific because it describes what we can’t see, yet it is the most successful theory in the history of physics! The flaw in the argument is the assumption that our reality is all reality, which is materialism. Certainly our reality is just what we see, but that it is all reality is unproven. If the reality of science is only what we see, then quantum theory isn’t scientific but that is a big assumption. This is why scientific theories aren’t limited to what we see, and never have been.
For example, the theory of gravity is scientific but we don’t observe gravity, just its effects. Science is actually based on empiricism, as proposed by Lock and Hume, the idea that knowledge comes from experience not beliefs. Scientific theories then only have to predict physical events, not be about them, so quantum theory is scientific because it does that.
The myth that science must only describe physical things is logical positivism, a philosophical movement based on materialism that began in the 1920s. It argues that only what we observe exists, so science should be about nothing else. Rather than talking about thoughts, feelings, and beliefs that we can’t see, why not focus on what we can? Purging science of non-observables seems good, but it makes most of mathematics unscientific, as the unknown x of algebra, the infinitesimal dx of calculus, and even the triangle of geometry, aren’t physical things. Logical positivism is materialism masquerading as an axiom of science when it isn’t, and never was.
Positivism doesn’t work in any other discipline either. Behaviorism tried to reduce all psychology to behavior, until Chomsky showed that it couldn’t explain the productivity of language. Applying positivism to computing would deny human-computer interaction (HCI) concepts like polite computing, and socio-technical concepts like group agreement. Today, physics is the last bastion of positivism, but even there it is failing because it can’t avoid the concept of the observer.
According to positivism, physical reality exists objectively, whether it is observed or not, so it should be described that way. The observer is then a subjective concept that has no place in science because it can’t be seen. Unfortunately, the main theories of modern physics both assume that an observer exists, as quantum theory needs an observer to trigger physical events and relativity needs an observer frame of reference. If even physics can’t ban the observer, how can other disciplines do it? Instead of an objective universe, physics now suggests that we live in a participative universe, whose every event is an observer-observed interaction, so to ignore the observer is to ignore half of reality.
Quantum theory is scientific because scientific theories don’t have to describe physical things. After all, that we can’t see a ray of light from the side doesn’t make it not exist then. Reality carries on whether we see it or not, and according to quantum theory, even causes what we see. An observation is then a request for a view, just as a click in a game is. Yet if the long-sought boundary between the classical and quantum worlds is the click of observation, this produces a measurement problem.